Saturday, April 28, 2007

They are at it again, Create an emergency to force changes the fed wants.

Read all About it. Click above. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53350




http://www.zimbardo.com/current.html
How good people turn Evil. Excellent Book


Ever wonder how so many people can be so evil and so against our cause for freedom, especially those in power. The following is a great book for understanding how ordinary people can group together and become slave masters once the power begins to flow. As with Ed and
Elaine fighting the powers that be, anytime you put power to control in the hands of a few, it only leads to trouble for the rest. For the few dollars this book costs, the inspiration is huge.

Finding Hope in Knowing the Universal Capacity for Evil

"The Lucifer Effect, Understanding How good people turn evil.

http://www.zimbardo.com/current.html

Scenes from his 1971 study at Stanford University in which students were told to be prisoner or guard; the results were echoed at Abu Ghraib.

Dr. Zimbardo, a social psychologist and the past president of the American Psychological Association, has made his reputation studying how people disguise the good and bad in themselves and under what conditions either is expressed.

His Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971, known as the S.P.E. in social science textbooks, showed how anonymity, conformity and boredom can be used to induce sadistic behavior in otherwise wholesome students. More recently, Dr. Zimbardo, 74, has been studying
how policy decisions and individual choices led to abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The road that took him from Stanford to

Abu Ghraib is described in his new book, “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil” (Random House).

“I’ve always been curious about the psychology of the person behind the mask,” Dr. Zimbardo said as he displayed his collection.

“When someone is anonymous, it opens the door to all kinds of antisocial behavior, as seen by the Ku Klux Klan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007
/04/03/science/
03conv.html?ex=1177905600
&en=432175515d001c47&ei=5070


Q. For those who never studied it in their freshman psychology class, can you describe the Stanford Prison Experiment?

A. In the summer of 1971, we set up a mock prison on the Stanford University campus. We took 23 volunteers and randomly divided
them into two groups. These were normal young men, students. We asked them to act as “prisoners” and “guards” might in a prison
environment. The experiment was to run for two weeks.

By the end of the first day, nothing much was happening. But on the second day, there was a prisoner rebellion. The guards came to me: “What do we do?”

“It’s your prison,” I said, warning them against physical violence. The guards then quickly moved to psychological punishment,
though there was physical abuse, too.

In the ensuing days, the guards became ever more sadistic, denying the prisoners food, water and sleep, shooting them with
fire-extinguisher spray, throwing their blankets into dirt, stripping them naked and dragging rebels across the yard.

How bad did it get? The guards ordered the prisoners to simulate sodomy. Why? Because the guards were bored. Boredom is a powerful
motive for evil. I have no idea how much worse things might have gotten.

Q. Why did you pull the plug on the experiment?

A. On the fifth night, my former graduate student Christina Maslach came by. She witnessed the guards putting bags over the

prisoners’ heads, chain their legs and march them around. Chris ran out in tears. “I’m not sure I want to have anything more to do

with you, if this is the sort of person you are,” she said. “It’s terrible what you’re doing to those boys.” I thought, “Oh my God,

she’s right.”

Q. What’s the difference between your study and the ones performed at Yale in 1961? There, social psychologist Stanley Milgram

ordered his subjects to give what they thought were painful and possibly lethal shocks to complete strangers. Most complied.

A. In a lot of ways, the studies are bookends in our understanding of evil. Milgram quantified the small steps that people take

when they do evil. He showed that an authority can command people to do things they believe they’d never do. I wanted to take that

further. Milgram’s study only looked at one aspect of behavior, obedience to authority, in short 50-minute takes. The S.P.E.,

because it was slated to go for two weeks, was almost like a forerunner of reality television. You could see behavior unfolding

hour by hour, day by day.

Here’s something that’s sort of funny. The first time I spoke publicly about the S.P.E., Stanley Milgram told me: “Your study is

going to take all the ethical heat off of my back. People are now going to say yours is the most unethical study ever, and not

mine.”

Q. From your book, I sense you feel some lingering guilt about organizing “the most unethical study” ever. Do you?

A. When I look back on it, I think, “Why didn’t you stop the cruelty earlier?” To stand back was contrary to my upbringing and

nature.

When I stood back as a noninterfering experimental scientist, I was, in a sense, as drawn into the power of the situation as any

prisoners and guards.

Q. What was your reaction when you first saw those photographs from Abu Ghraib?

A. I was shocked. But not surprised. I immediately flashed on similar pictures from the S.P.E. What particularly bothered me was

that the Pentagon blamed the whole thing on a “few bad apples.” I knew from our experiment, if you put good apples into a bad

situation, you’ll get bad apples.

That was why I was willing to be an expert witness for Sgt. Chip Frederick, who was ultimately sentenced to eight years for his

role at Abu Ghraib. Frederick was the Army reservist who was put in charge of the night shift at Tier 1A, where detainees were

abused. Frederick said, up front, “What I did was wrong, and I don’t understand why I did it.”

Q. Do you understand?

A. Yeah. The situation totally corrupted him. When his reserve unit was first assigned to guard Abu Ghraib, Frederick was exactly

like one of our nice young men in the S.P.E. Three months later, he was exactly like one of our worst guards.

Q. Aren’t you absolving Sergeant Frederick of personal responsibility for his actions?

A. You had the C.I.A., civilian interrogators, military intelligence saying to the Army reservists, “Soften these detainees up for

interrogation.”

Those kinds of vague orders were the equivalent of my saying to the S.P.E. guards, “It’s your prison.” At Abu Ghraib, you didn’t

have higher-ups saying, “You must do these terrible things.” The authorities, I believe, created an environment that gave guards

permission to become abusive — plus one that gave them plausible deniability.

Chip worked 40 days without a single break, 12-hour shifts. The place was overcrowded, filthy, dangerous, under constant

bombardment. All of that will distort judgment, moral reasoning. The bottom line: If you’re going to have a secret interrogation

center in the middle of a war zone, this is going to happen.

Q. You keep using this phrase “the situation” to describe the underlying cause of wrongdoing. What do you mean?

A. That human behavior is more influenced by things outside of us than inside. The “situation” is the external environment. The

inner environment is genes, moral history, religious training. There are times when external circumstances can overwhelm us, and we

do things we never thought. If you’re not aware that this can happen, you can be seduced by evil. We need inoculations against our

own potential for evil. We have to acknowledge it. Then we can change it.

Q. So you disagree with Anne Frank, who wrote in her diary, “I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at

heart?”

A. That’s not true. Some people can be made into monsters. And the people who abused, and killed her, were.

Friday, April 27, 2007

All the proof you need, Never overturned and sited by both sides to make their point?


U.S. Supreme Court

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

240 U.S. 1

FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
No. 140.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.
Decided January 24, 1916.

[240 U.S. 1, 2] Messrs. Julien T. Davies, Brainard Tolles, Garrard Glenn, and Martin A. Schenck for appellant.

Mr. Henry W. Clark for appellee.

[240 U.S. 1, 5] Solicitor General Davis, Assistant Attorney General Wallace, and Attorney General Gregory for the United States.

[240 U.S. 1, 9]

Mr. Chief Justic e White delivered the opinion of the court:

As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913 ( II., chap. 16, 38 Stat. at L. 166). Because of constitutional questions duly arising the case is here on direct appeal from a decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for relief was stated.

The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, of the peculiar relation of the corporation to the stockholders, and their particular interests resulting from many of the administrative provisions of the assailed act, of the confusion, wrong, and multiplicity [240 U.S. 1, 10] of suits and the absence of all means of redress which would result if the corporation paid the tax and complied with the act in other respects without protest, as it was alleged it was its intention to do. To put out of the way a question of jurisdiction we at once say that in view of these averments and the ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, sustaining the right of a stockholder to sue to restrain a corporation under proper averments from voluntarily paying a tax charged to be unconstitutional on the ground that to permit such a suit did not violate the prohibitions of 3224, Revised Statutes (Comp. Stat. 1913, 5947), against enjoining the enforcement of taxes, we are of opinion that the contention here made that there was no jurisdiction of the cause, since to entertain it would violate the provisions of the Revised Statutes referred to, is without merit. Before coming to dispose of the case on the merits, however, we observe that the defendant corporation having called the attention of the government to the pendency of the cause and the nature of the controversy and its unwillingness to voluntarily refuse to comply with the act assailed, the United States, as amicus curiae, has at bar been heard both orally and by brief for the purpose of sustaining the decree.

Aside from averments as to citizenship and residence, recitals as to the provisions of the statute, and statements as to the business of the corporation, contained in the first ten paragraphs of the bill, advanced to sustain jurisdiction, the bill alleged twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of paragraphs or subdivisions. As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment.

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

But let us by a demonstration of the error of the fundamental proposition as to the significance of the Amendment dispel the confusion necessarily arising from the arguments deduced from it. Before coming, however, to the text of the Amendment, to the end that its significance may be determined in the light of the previous legislative and judicial history of the subject with which the Amendment is concerned, and with a knowledge of the conditions which presumptively led up to its adoption, and hence of the purpose it was intended to accomplish, we make a brief statement on those subjects.

That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never [240 U.S. 1, 13] been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes. Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of art. 1, 8, cl. 1, that 'all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' and to the limitations of art I., 2, cl. 3, that 'direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,' and of art 1, 9, cl. 4, that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.' In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.' It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted. In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced [240 U.S. 1, 14] by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions. At the very beginning, however, there arose differences of opinion concerning the criteria to be applied in determining in which of the two great subdivisions a tax would fall. Without pausing to state at length the basis of these differences and the consequences which arose from them, as the whole subject was elaborately reviewed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, we make a condensed statement which is in substance taken from what was said in that case. Early the differences were manifested in pressing on the one hand and opposing on the other, the passage of an act levying a tax without apportionment on carriages 'for the conveyance of persons,' and when such a tax was enacted the question of its repugnancy to the Constitution soon came to this court for determination. Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 1 L. ed. 556. It was held that the tax came within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and therefore did not require apportionment, and while this conclusion was agreed to by all the members of the court who took part in the decision of the case, there was not an exact coincidence in the reasoning by which the conclusion was sustained. Without stating the minor differences, it may be said with substantial accuracy that the divergent reasoning was this: On the one hand, that the tax was not in the class of direct taxes requiring apportionment, because it was not levied directly on property because of its ownership, but rather on its use, and was therefore an excise, duty, or impost; and on the other, that in any event the class of direct taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because of its ownership. Putting out of view the difference of reasoning which led to the concurrent conclusion in the Hylton Case, it is undoubted that it came to pass in legislative practice that the line of demarcation between the two great classes of direct taxes on the one hand and excises, duties, and [240 U.S. 1, 15] imposts on the other, which was exemplified by the ruling in that case, was accepted and acted upon. In the first place this is shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership. And this practical construction came in theory to be the accepted one, since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of the text writers. 1 Kent, Com. 254, 256; 1 Story, Const. 955; Cooley, Const. Lim. 5th ed. *480; Miller, Constitution, 237; Pom. Const. Law, 281; 1 Hare, Const. Law, 249, 250; Burroughs, Taxn. 502; Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation, 225.

Upon the lapsing of a considerable period after the repeal of the income tax laws referred to, in 1894 [28 Stat. at L. 509, chap. 349], an act was passed laying a tax on incomes from all classes of property and other sources of revenue which was not apportioned, and which therefore was of course assumed to come within the classification of excises, duties, and imposts which were subject to the rule of uniformity, but not to the rule of apportionment. The constitutional validity of this law was challenged on the ground that it did not fall within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, [240 U.S. 1, 16] but was direct in the constitutional sense, and was therefore void for want of apportionment, and that question came to this court and was passed upon in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912. The court, fully recognizing in the passage which we have previously quoted the allembracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excises, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity, held the law to be unconstitutional in substance for these reasons: Concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this purpose contemplated by the Constitution. ( 157 U.S. 581 .) Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent. As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them. Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.

This is the text of the Amendment:

    'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment.

The statute was enacted October 3, 1913, and provided for a general yearly income tax from December to December of each year. Exceptionally, however, it fixed a first period embracing only the time from March 1, to December 31, 1913, and this limited retroactivity is assailed as repugnant to the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, and as inconsistent with the 16th Amendment itself. But the date of the retroactivity did not extend beyond the time when the Amendment was operative, and there can be no dispute that there was power by virtue of the Amendment during that period to levy the tax, without apportionment, and so far as the limitations of the Constitution in other respects are concerned, the contention is not open, since in Stockdale v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 20 Wall. 323, 331, 22 L. ed. 348, 351, in sustaining a provision in a prior income tax law which was assailed because of its retroactive character, it was said:

    'The right of Congress to have imposed this tax by a new statute, although the measure of it was governed by the income of the past year, cannot be doubted; much less can it be doubted that it could impose such a tax on the income of the current year, though part of that year had elapsed when the statute was passed. The joint resolution of July 4th, 1864 [13 Stat. at L. 417], imposed a tax of 5 per cent upon all income of the previous year, although one tax on it had already been paid, and no one doubted the validity of the tax or attempted to resist it.' [240 U.S. 1, 21] The statute provides that the tax should not apply to enumerated organizations or corporations, such as labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations, mutual savings banks, etc., and the argument is that as the Amendment authorized a tax on incomes 'from whatever source derived,' by implication it excluded the power to make these exemptions. But this is only a form of expressing the erroneous contention as to the meaning of the Amendment, which we have already disposed of. And so far as this alleged illegality is based on other provisions of the Constitution, the contention is also not open, since it was expressly considered and disposed of in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 108, 173 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 422, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312

Without expressly stating all the other contentions, we summarize them to a degree adequate to enable us to typify and dispose of all of them.

1. The statute levies one tax called a normal tax on all incomes of individuals up to $20,000, and from that amount up, by gradations, a progressively increasing tax, called an additional tax, is imposed. No tax, however, is levied upon incomes of unmarried individuals amounting to $3, 000 or less, nor upon incomes of married persons amounting to $4,000 or less. The progressive tax and the exempted amounts, it is said, are based on wealth alone, and the tax is therefore repugnant to the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.

2. The act provides for collecting the tax at the source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax on interest due on bonds and mortgages, unless the owner to whom the interest is payable gives a notice that he claims an exemption. This duty cast upon corporations, because of the cost to which they are subjected, is asserted to be repugnant to due process of law as a taking of their property without compensation, and we recapitulate various contentions as to discrimination against corporations and against individuals, [240 U.S. 1, 22] predicated on provisions of the act dealing with the subject.

(a) Corporations indebted upon coupon and registered bonds are discriminated against, since corporations not so indebted are relieved of any labor or expense involved in deducting and paying the taxes of individuals on the income derived from bonds.

(b) Of the class of corporations indebted as above stated, the law further discriminates against those which have assumed the payment of taxes on their bonds, since although some or all of their bondholders may be exempt from taxation, the corporations have no means of ascertaining such fact, and it would therefore result that taxes would often be paid by such corporations when no taxes were owing by the individuals to the government.

(c) The law discriminates against owners of corporate bonds in favor of individuals none of whose income is derived from such property, since bondholders are, during the interval between the deducting and the paying of the tax on their bonds, deprived of the use of the money so withheld.

(d) Again, corporate bondholders are discriminated against because the law does not release them from payment of taxes on their bonds even after the taxes have been deducted by the corporation, and therefore if, after deduction, the corporation should fail, the bondholders would be compelled to pay the tax a second time.

(e) Owners of bonds the taxes on which have been assumed by the corporation are discriminated against because the payment of the taxes by the corporation does not relieve the bondholders of their duty to include the income from such bonds in making a return of all income, the result being a double payment of the taxes, labor and expense in applying for a refund, and a deprivation of the use of the sum of the taxes during the interval which elapses before they are refunded. [240 U.S. 1, 23] 3. The provision limiting the amount of interest paid which may be deducted from gross income of corporations for the purpose of fixing the taxable income to interest on indebtedness not exceeding one half the sum of bonded indebtedness and paidup capital stock is also charged to be wanting in due process because discriminating between different classes of corporations and individuals.

4. It is urged that want of due process results from the provision allowing individuals to deduct from their gross income dividends paid them by corporations whose incomes are taxed, and not giving such right of deduction to corporations.

5. Want of due process is also asserted to result from the fact that the act allows a deduction of $3,000 or $4,000 to those who pay the normal tax, that is, whose incomes are $20,000 or less, and does not allow the deduction to those whose incomes are greater than $20,000; that is, such persons are not allowed, for the purpose of the additional or progressive tax, a second right to deduct the $3,000 or $4,000 which they have already enjoyed. And a further violation of due process is based on the fact that for the purpose of the additional tax no second right to deduct dividends received from corporations is permitted.

6. In various forms of statement, want of due process, it is moreover insisted, arises from the provisions of the act allowing a deduction for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable income of stated amounts, on the ground that the provisions discriminate between married and single people, and discriminate between husbands and wives who are living together and those who are not.

7. Discrimination and want of due process result, it is said, from the fact that the owners of houses in which they live are not compelled to estimate the rental value in making up their incomes, while those who are living in rented houses and pay rent are not allowed, in making up their taxable income, to deduct rent which they have [240 U.S. 1, 24] paid, and that want of due process also results from the fact that although family expenses are not, as a rule, permitted to be deducted from gross, to arrive at taxable, income, farmers are permitted to omit from their income return certain products of the farm which are susceptible of use by them for sustaining their families during the year.

So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts only a geographical uniformity, and there is not a semblance of ground in any of the propositions for assuming that a violation of such uniformity is complained of. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608, 622 , 46 S. L. ed. 713, 720, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 158 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282 , 58 S. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421.

So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon, it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause. Treat v. White, 181 U.S. 264 , 45 L. ed. 853, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608 , 46 L. ed. 713, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 61 , 49 S. L. ed. 78, 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 158 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282 , 58 S. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421. And no change in the situation here would arise even if it be conceded, as we think it must be, that this doctrine would have no application in a case where, although there was a seeming exercise of the taxing power, the act complained of was so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation, but a confiscation of property; that is, a taking [240 U.S. 1, 25] of the same in violation of the 5th Amendment; or, what is equivalent thereto, was so wanting in basis for classification as to produce such a gross and patent inequality as to inevitably lead to the same conclusion. We say this because none of the propositions relied upon in the remotest degree present such questions. It is true that it is elaborately insisted that although there be no express constitutional provision prohibiting it, the progressive feature of the tax causes it to transcend the conception of all taxation and to be a mere arbitrary abuse of power which must be treated as wanting in due process. But the proposition disregards the fact that in the very early history of the government a progressive tax was imposed by Congress, and that such authority was exerted in some, if not all, of the various income taxes enacted prior to 1894 to which we have previously adverted. And over and above all this the contention but disregards the further fact that its absolute want of foundation in reason was plainly pointed out in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and the right to urge it was necessarily foreclosed by the ruling in that case made. In this situation it is, of course, superfluous to say that arguments as to the expediency of levying such taxes, or of the economic mistake or wrong involved in their imposition, are beyond judicial cognizance. Besides this demonstration of the want of merit in the contention based upon the progressive feature of the tax, the error in the others is equally well established either by prior decisions or by the adequate bases for classification which are apparent on the face of the assailed provisions; that is, the distinction between individuals and corporations, the difference between various kinds of corporations, etc., etc. Ibid.; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 158 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282 , 58 S. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353, 19 L. ed. 701; National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 70 , 58 S. L. ed. 504, 510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209. In fact, comprehensively surveying all the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 26] relied upon, aside from the erroneous construction of the Amendment which we have previously disposed of, we cannot escape the conclusion that they all rest upon the mistaken theory that although there be differences between the subjects taxed, to differently tax them transcends the limit of taxation and amounts to a want of due process, and that where a tax levied is believed by one who resists its enforcement to be wanting in wisdom and to operate injustice, from that fact in the nature of things there arises a want of due process of law and a resulting authority in the judiciary to exceed its powers and correct what is assumed to be mistaken or unwise exertions by the legislative authority of its lawful powers, even although there be no semblance of warrant in the Constitution for so doing.

We have not referred to a contention that because certain administrative powers to enforce the act were conferred by the statute upon the Secretary of the Treasury, therefore it was void as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we think to state the proposition is to answer it. Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 , 36 L. ed. 294, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 496 , 48 S. L. ed. 525, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320 , 53 L. ed. 1013, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671.

AFFIRMED.

Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

Children should not be lab rats for drug company profits

Are Illinois "Teen Screen" Victims setup to die? -- with Medication, Overdoses, Beatings, Emotional & Sexual Assaults & Neglect in Illinois State Care!!!
Criminal Neglect??? -- or Criminal Intent?
It appears the Court has set up these now 11 &14 yr old sisters to die in Illinois State care! State administerd face beating

Why has this State administered child abuse -- as evidenced in this photo -- not been exposed in the Court by her social workers, by her Guardian ad Litem or the contracted Pediatricians! Why not, if the GAL or all of Illinois DCFS really do care about these children! -- children for whom they get paid & claim they protect!

This photo is of tiny Ariela's face with her bruising and swelling after a beating by three loveless, mindlessly brutal Illinois State contracted caregivers -- simply because this child naturally desired and desperately wanted to see and be with her Mom!
Click photo (or here) to see Internal Medical Report & sister's statement.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Ron Paul On Lou Dobbs

Veterans for 911 truth







Pilots
for 9/11 Truth


SJT
911 Forum

9/11
Truth Candidates for Congress

911
Eyewitness

Dr.
Judy Wood, Collapse Analysis

Dr.
Steve Jones 9/11 Power Point

WTC
7 Implosion

Free
9/11 Videos

9-11
Physics

Popular
Mechanics debunked

The
National 9/11 Debate

WTC
Dust Analysis

FOIA
Bombs at WTC


NY
9 11 Truth


Eric
Hufschmid


PNAC

9/11
in Plane Site

Skull
and Bones

Scientific
9/11 Investigation

9/11
Truth Sites

Scholars
for 9/11 Truth

Scholars
for 9/11 Truth Forum

9
11 Truth Action

Top
Officials: 9 11 is Inside Job

9/11
News

911Truth.org

False
Flag News

MUJCA

9/11
Sites


9/11
Summation

911
Blogger

Republic
Broadcasting Network

9/11
Site Links

Day
Dream Politics

Rick
Siegel
-

September11.se

v911t
News Archive

Patriots
Question 9/11

9/11
Blogger


Snowshoe
Films




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8








UQ Wire: Tracking All Hijackers (LIHOP Series)

Unanswered Questions: Thinking For Ourselves
Presented by… http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

Tracking All Hijackers (LIHOP Series)


From forthcoming "911Skeptics Unite! -the encyclopedia"
- now up in a preview at http://www.globalfreepress.com
See also… UQ Wire: 911 - They Let It Happen On Purpose!

By Nico Haupt

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00218.htm

Friday, April 20, 2007

Ed Brown Still holding out for a Miracle.


Miracle

(Latin miraculum, from mirari, "to wonder")

Whether you are a tax honesty patriot, a protester or an advocate of some constitutional reform, many are watching and waiting to see what happens as Ed and Elaine Brown's sentencing hearing nears. Just days away and a lot closer than the possibility of a Miracle, many followers and Advocates of Ed and Elaine are watching closely to see if federal agents take them by force, invite a surrender or just let the Browns alone. As with the class action law suit in Washington D.C. between We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the US Dept of Justice, We the People are quietly waiting to see what happens. Bob Schulz of We The People Foundation has indicated he hopes for a peaceful solution and a positive answer back from the court of appeals. But many like myself are prepared to begin supporting Congressman Ron Paul as a last ditch effort to change the Income Tax laws once and for all before we start to take things in a new direction. That direction could be forcing the government to answer and to change it's unconstitutional behavior by using non peaceful means. More protests are likely and more Americans refusing to pay their so called fair share of the tax on labor "slavery", as well as rushing the capital or other government buildings and forcing a sit down during closed hearings. We are tired of being ignored or being called conspiracy nuts when all we are doing is asking questions in a respectable manner. We are preparing to take this revolution to the next level and that might just be what America needs more than anything else. It's time to get the lazy, good for nothing US Citizens off the couch and show them why they can't ignore the constitution any more. May God help Us.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Here Is The Law


Can You find the statute than makes you liable for an income tax on your labor?
How about the definition of Income? Surely that must be in here.
Wages defined as Income?
Definition of Employee that includes You?
What the Bleap then, Why are you filing an income tax return?

Well I'll tell you why. Because the company you work for is telling the IRS you earned INCOME so they get to write your labor off as an expense. Do you know how much Income tax your company will pay this year. A Lot less now that you have paid it for them. Your company should be taking you to dinner for paying their fair share for them. Instead you are just stupid America.

http://www.atgpress.com/atgpress/tax/tax025.htm

Against the Grain


townhall.com
Terence Jeffrey
March 16, 2005


Every year, the Social Security Administration consigns up to 9 million hopelessly inaccurate W-2 reports to Social Security limbo.

It is called the Earnings Suspense File (ESF), and it is the final resting place of W-2s that cannot be matched to a known taxpayer. One company filed 33,448 of these inaccurate W-2s in one year.

But will the government do anything about it? [??????]

House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner asked the Government Accountability Office to look at the ESF. This month, GAO released a report (focusing on 1985-2000) that reveals a telling pattern. [Reports cost money and are seldom acted on.]

Orphaned W-2s do not emerge randomly from American business.

"Forty-three percent of employers associated with earnings reports in the ESF are from only five of 83 broad industry categories," GAO reported. These include "eating and drinking establishments, construction and special trades, agricultural production-crops, business service organizations and health service organizations."

At least some of the tendency in these industries to file inaccurate W-2s is driven by the hiring illegal aliens. Citing a report by SSA's inspector general, GAO says "SSA's experience is that employers who rely on a workforce consisting of relatively unskilled and migrant workers are the major source of suspended earnings."

However, most businesses in these industries are not "egregious" filers of inaccurate W-2s. "Among these industry categories," says GAO, "a small portion of employers account for a disproportionate number of ESF reports."

Between 1985 and 2000, only 8,900 employers filed 1,000 or more W-2s that ended up in the ESF, but those 8,900 accounted for more than 30 percent of ESF reports.

Then there is the firm that filed 33,448 inaccurate W-2s in one year.

"(W)e found that employers with a high number of reports in the ESF had a consistent pattern of misidentifying their workers on their annual earnings reports to SSA," said GAO. "For example, one employer averaged about 13,300 reports placed in the ESF per year over the period we analyzed, ranging from a low of 5,971 to a high of 33,448."

When SSA cannot match a W-2 to a worker, it writes to the address on the W-2. "If the worker does not respond," says GAO, "SSA then sends a letter to the employer that filed the report soliciting assistance in resolving the problem."

You would think employers who routinely file large numbers of these W-2s would figure out they were doing something wrong.

You also would think the Department of Homeland Security, which enforces the immigration law, might also suspect they were doing something wrong and want to investigate exactly what it is. [Millions of tax dollars are being spent - nationally and statewide on Homeland "Security".]

"Employers engaging in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers can be subject to fines and imprisonment," says GAO.

Citing competing demands for Homeland Security resources in a post-9/11 world, GAO says, "At present, it is unlikely that DHS will take enforcement action against employers and workers who submit inaccurate information to SSA to conceal unauthorized work activity." [So much for the "safety"/security of US citizens].

But, says GAO, "it is important that some level of coordination be re-established to best leverage SSA's data on potential unauthorized work activity and DHS staff resources to target the most egregious employers."

Daniel Bertoni, a GAO analyst who worked on the report, told me GAO has the names of the 8,900 companies that filed at least 1,000 inaccurate W-2s between 1985 and 2000. It also has the name of the company that filed 33,448 in one year.

Would GAO give the names to Homeland Security? "I would have to consult with attorneys in terms of access to tax information," he said. "If it were legal to do so, we would share the information to the fullest extent possible, certainly." [Isn't this one of the major problems threatening our "security"?]

I asked House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner if GAO should give Homeland Security the names. "Yes, I do believe the GAO should provide the compilation of employers sending deficient W-2s to the DHS," said Sensenbrenner. "And I believe that the DHS should establish a procedure for investigating those companies that continue to send bad W-2s year after year."

Should Homeland Security immediately begin to investigate companies that routinely file large numbers of inaccurate W-2s to see if they are hiring large numbers of illegal aliens? "Absolutely," said Sensenbrenner. "And the administration should fund the 800 per year additional immigration internal enforcement officers authorized by last year's 9/11 Commission bill, and signed by the president." [Does anyone think for a minute that the 500+ DC WIMPS will do anything about this? NOT if there is any threat of losing funding toward future campaign funds to continue their status quo.]

Do Americans have the right to know the name of the company that filed the 33,448 inaccurate W-2s in one year? "Yes," said Sensenbrenner. "I think the American people should know the name of every company that files more than 100 inaccurate W-2s every year.

"Every community in America," he said, "has begun to recognize the hidden cost of employing illegal aliens, from over-crowded emergency rooms in bankrupt hospitals to schools overcrowded with indigent children who require special language teachers most school districts can't afford. [These COSTS are not hidden - they are being reported daily from cities/ health institutions/Social Service organizations, etc. - but obviously being ignored by DC and its lack of enforcement at our borders.]

"Sadly," he said, "many of these employers are in communities which already have high levels of unemployed U.S. citizens."

©2005 Creators Syndicate

Contact Terence Jeffrey
townhall.com

Saturday, April 14, 2007

What Should I Do?????????


I have heard and seen every argument out there but what really gets me is how many people are asking what Should I do when my employer asks for a w-4.
If you have to ask you need to do some home work. The answers are right there in the tax code, the regulations and the supreme court rulings.

Also anyone who says Hendrickson is better than Schiff or Rose is better than Someone else is not being honest with you. They are only comfortable where they are at. Not a good place to be. The justice Department will go after anyone who teaches or files or not files in a way that they don't like, or in a way that excuses american labor from a tax. The government, those who earn a living off taxes and those who benefit all insist the government has a right to tax labor. Whether out of ignorance or because they don't care or truly believe the lies, the fact is in America we are being forced to pay a tax on labor. The problem starts with the employer. Forget about why, look at what is true. If the employer doesn't do it like the government wants they get in trouble, They will try to give you 1099, which puts the trouble on you instead of them. You are now responsible for the taxes.

Lets take an example. Lets say a man walks up to your house and says, I am going to buy your house, here is a contract, I just need you to sign it. What would you say?

When you start a new job, you are going to come across those who refuse to follow the law. Do you want to work for these people. You may want to complain to the owners or file a lawsuit if they are breaking the law. You do have rights if you understand them. Just because the government tells them to break the law will not protect the employer if you take them to court. Once you are hired, make sure you punch in or somehow can prove you started to work. They will want to get the paperwork done right away, but you must first be on the clock. Once you are there with the HR person, you will begin the exchange of legal and contracted agreements that will apply for as long as you continue to work for that company, It is in the best interest of both parties that all understandings be resolved.

1. When it comes to the I-9 form, read it very carefully. The employee decides what documents to present. Use anything you have except the SS card or number. I Use a passport, otherwise use a certified birth certificate and a state ID, Especially if your job includes driving a company car.

2. They hand you a w-4. Thank them and then fold it up and put it in you pocket. They have done their job and that's all they are required to do is hand it to you. If they insist on getting it back, hand it to them blank, If they say you have to fill it our, tell them to show you the law. Or explain you need time. If they tell you they need a letter explaining you refuse to return it filled out, tell them they need to right a short letter stating they handed it to you but you refused to return it to them. Tell them to write it on a company letter head, and you will sign it. Make sure you get a copy.

In the end the company will probably try to scare you into compliance by saying if you do not submit a w-4 you will have taxes withheld at the single Zero rate. This is not possible without a SSN. Also it is not possible for the company to collect SS taxes from you though they will still be required to pay their share of SS tax. But not to your account number. You may wish to read up on Public law 93-579 and 42 usc 408. Print out for them any statutes that prove your points. A lot of this info is already on the web thanks to all those who came before you.

If the company does somehow collect state, federal or ss tax without your SSN then you will need to find an attorney who understands your position. Do not try to argue the tax laws, but instead just argue that you want the company to be upfront and honest about your contract for employment as is your right, and for them to follow the letter of the law. Make it clear that any liability for state or federal tax will be taken care of seperate from your JOB. You can tell the attorney you refuse to participate in SS and the law is clear that you can not be required to participate in order to work. If they argue with you, you don't have the right attorney. Keep looking. This is the hardest part. If possible you might want to find the attorney before you start looking for that next JOB. That way you can give the company the attorneys card if they threaten to fire you the first day if you do not comply with their demands for a SSN or W-4. Ignorance is the hardest thing to fight. Be prepared by doing your own research. Do not believe anyone else and certainly not those of us out here telling you not to pay your fair share of tax on labor.

If you have been able to keep the JOB without the SSN you are OK, unless the company takes taxes out anyways, then you will have to file a return for a full refund. The point here is that without a SSN Pete Hendricksons book makes sense. But if you file a W-4, give up your SSN or receive a 1099, you ARE going to have to fight for your money back. If there is no withholdings, who cares, you are free to exersice your rights. But getting into contract disputes and errors of law regarding these forms can be very expensive, and the government does not play fair or by it's own rules. It's best to not pay in at all, but not by using the 1099 system. Tell the company you are trading your labor the way his/her supplier trades product for cash. Tell them they can pay
you out of their accounts receivables and still deduct the labor as an expense on their tax return. Tell them you know the law and are prepared to prove what you say if they don't understand. Help them to see the light.

The entire point to this post is simple. Everyone runs around fighting the IRS, but once the employer starts to tell the IRS you are earning taxable anything, you are screwed. The IRS will try to tell the company to break the law and to do things that are not in the law, but it is the company that is falsely reporting taxable wages, then making workers think these are taxable income when all you are doing is trading your labor and property for another form of property of equal value. There is no gain, labor is not defined as taxable, it is not income. Income is not defined, you are not required by anyone to do anything you don't feel comfortable doing, otherwise the contract is void. Companies spend millions working contracts with their partners
and suppliers, but then try to force employees to accept a standard government deal. Why? I am still trying to figure out why these companies are so afraid of the IRS. Maybe they are just taking the easy way out. We need every company in America to accept our contract for labor and agree not to report our exchange to any government agency unless specifically authorized by the constitution and the Supreme Court, or by agreement. This is where I believe the fight should be. Not with the IRS.

Thank you
Bob


!I am asking everyone to keep their eyes open for any cases or opinions regarding lawsuits against employers for entering non zero amounts in box 1 of W-2 forms against the will of the employees. I am looking for any and all court rulings, opinions or lawsuits where an employee has taken the employer or withholding agent to court for filing w-2 forms when the employee has refused the use of a SS number, refused to file a W-4 or has demanded that the employer follow
the letter of the law. I am not looking for cases where there was an out of court settlement, but if you know of one I am interested in it anyways. Please help the cause by forwarding these cases to me by making them available on Yahoo groups or send them to me so I can research them. Thank You.


www.bleap.blogspot.com
or email
log2arcsine@yahoo.com

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Click here to vote!!!!!

New internet straw poll puts Ron Paul ahead of all Democrats.

Prison Planet.com



9/11 Family Members File Petition with NIST

George Washington's Blog
Thursday April 12, 2007

Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine today filed a petition with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeking correction of inaccurate factual statements and analysis in NIST's reports on the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Mr. Doyle is the representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, the Coalition of 9/11 Families*, and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.

Mr. McIlvaine, an outspoken 9/11 truth activist, lost his son Bobby when the World Trade Centers were destroyed.

Another prominent 9/11 family member supports the petition, but decided for personal reasons not to sign.

Also signing the petition are:

• Physicist Dr. Steven Jones

• Scientist and former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Kevin Ryan

• Architect Richard Gage (a member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use)

• And the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

The petition can be read here. It is very strong and solid, and well worth a read.

It should be noted that the work on the petition commenced many months before the NIST petitions prepared by James Fetzer, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Ed Haas, which promote directed energy weapon theories and, in the case of Mr. Haas' petition, actually tries to stop NIST from examining whether or not explosives brought down WTC 7. You can be the judge of which petition is the strongest.

The family members' petition was mainly drafted by attorney James Gourley.

* The Coalition of 9/11 Families is not a signatory to the petition.


http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

BLEAP ED BROWN

"BLEAP THIS.... BLEAP'N FEDS", SAYS ED BROWN



SHOW US THE INHERENT LAW: What the bleap?

What the bleap? See more IRS cartoons at What the bleap? ... Ed Brown Chat. Log in with any name you choose then click on "Chat!" About. Ed & Elaine Brown ...
questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-bleap.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

SHOW US THE INHERENT LAW

What the bleap? See more IRS cartoons at What the bleap? ... I have not been able to listen to any of the archived Ed Brown RBN radio shows since Monday. ...
questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/ - 107k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[ More results from questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com ]

Digg - $1000000 if you can show Ed Brown the law

http://bleap.blogspot.com/ Ed Brown is the first family in my book. Few others have taken up arms against this out of control government and to prove it He ...
digg.com/politics/1_000_000_if_you_can_show_Ed_Brown_the_law - 675k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

digg / kosmicearthin / news / dugg

Read the rest at BLEAP.BLOGSPOT.COM More… ... Ed Brown is offering a $1000000 compensation (commercial property) to the first person to show him the law ...
www.digg.com/users/kosmicearthin - 33k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[ More results from www.digg.com ]

What the bleap? Bleap - Bleap - Bleap!!

The file 'bleap' was added by What The Bleap - Apr 8, 2007 ... DOCUMENTARY HISTORY · Doug Kenline Video Blog · Ed Brown $1000000 reward · Ed Brown Standoff ...
bleap.blogspot.com/ - 364k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

What the bleap? Bleap - Bleap - Bleap!!: Who thinks 911 has ...

The file '04-7041a' was added by What The Bleap - Apr 4, 2007 ... Doug Kenline Video Blog · Ed Brown $1000000 reward · Ed Brown Standoff · Einstein at Home ...
bleap.blogspot.com/2007/04/who-thinks-911-has-unanswered-questions.html - 136k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[ More results from bleap.blogspot.com ]